Johnson v. Hammett
| Decision Date | 23 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-18-1059 |
| Parties | REGINALD JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. OFFICER MUSE HAMMETT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
REGINALD JOHNSON Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER MUSE HAMMETT, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. ELH-18-1059
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
December 23, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This civil rights suit arises from an unfortunate incident of mistaken identity that resulted in the detention of plaintiff Reginald Johnson for about two days. He has filed a First Amended Complaint against Officer Muse Hammett,1 a police officer employed by the Maryland Transportation Authority ("MDTA"), and Officer Terrell Dickerson, a police officer employed by the State of Maryland. ECF 29 (the "Amended Complaint").2
The suit is rooted in a traffic stop conducted by Hammett on May 13, 2015, based on a speeding violation committed by Johnson (ECF 29, ¶¶ 13, 14), and the subsequent detention of
Page 2
Johnson as "a possible fugitive from Albuquerque, New Mexico." Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff was not a fugitive. However, he was not released until about 51 hours after his arrest.3
Suit was instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and substantive due process; and his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Id. ¶¶ 48-53.
Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss. ECF 34; ECF 45. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Officer Hammett has moved to dismiss (ECF 34), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 34-1) (collectively, the "Hammett Motion"). Hammett asserts that the Amended Complaint has failed to state a claim and that he is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 34-1 at 8-15. Johnson opposes the Motion. ECF 35 (the "Hammett Opposition"). Hammett has replied. ECF 36 (the "Hammett Reply").
Officer Dickerson has also moved to dismiss (ECF 45), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 45-1) (collectively, the "Dickerson Motion"). He urges dismissal of the Amended Complaint on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and he is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 45-1. Johnson opposes the motion. ECF 49 (the "Dickerson Opposition"). Dickerson has replied. ECF 56 (the "Dickerson Reply").
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant both motions.
Page 3
At approximately 4:30 p.m. on May 13, 2015, Johnson was driving on Interstate 95 when he was stopped by Officer Hammett for speeding. ECF 29, ¶ 13. Officer Hammett told plaintiff that he was speeding, and that "he would need to see [plaintiff's] license and registration." Id. ¶ 14. Johnson "complied with Defendant Hammett's request." Id. ¶ 15. About three minutes later, "Defendant Hammett came back to Plaintiff's car and asked him to step out." Id. ¶ 16. Again, Johnson "complied with Defendant Hammett's request." Id. ¶ 17.
Officer Hammett then "ask[ed] Plaintiff if he had ever been to New Mexico." Id. ¶ 18. Johnson responded that "he had not been to New Mexico." Id. ¶ 19. Johnson "proceeded to ask Defendant Hammett if this was about another individual named Reginald Johnson." Id. ¶ 20. Johnson explained that "he had a similar problem trying to get his passport approximately four ('4') years before the stop." Id. Further, Johnson told Officer Hammett that the previous mix-up was resolved when he "brought documentation showing who he was, and the [official] had a picture of the 'other' Reginald Johnson." Id. ¶ 21. To this, Officer Hammett allegedly responded, "'Ok' or something to that effect and told Plaintiff to get back into the car." Id. ¶ 22.5
Shortly thereafter, Officer Hammett "called for backup." Id. ¶ 23. After additional officers arrived at the scene, "Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs" and he was told that "he was a possible fugitive from Albuquerque, New Mexico." Id. ¶ 24. Johnson "asked Defendant Hammett if there [was] any way to get a picture of the 'other' Reginald Johnson because he believed that
Page 4
would clear everything up." Id. ¶ 25. According to Johnson, Hammett then "called someone on the radio, but [Johnson] was unable to hear what was discussed." Id. ¶ 26. Thereafter, Johnson was transported to the Baltimore City Central Booking and Intake Center ("Central Booking").6 Id. ¶ 27.
Before Johnson entered Central Booking, "Defendant Hammett said that if plaintiff's finger prints [sic] displayed 'no hits' that they would not hold him and that he would take Plaintiff back to his car." Id. ¶ 28. According to plaintiff, he "was fingerprinted and the monitor showed no hits." Id. ¶ 29. Nevertheless, "a supervisor," allegedly Dickerson, told Johnson that "they would have to keep him." Id. ¶ 30. Johnson avers that he again "asked officials to get the picture of the 'other' Reginald Johnson." Id. ¶ 31. According to Johnson, an "unknown woman" then told him "something to the effect of 'It is you and you are a fugitive from New Mexico and you will see the commissioner after 12:00AM, so you can take it up with him.'" Id. ¶ 32.
According to Johnson, his photograph and additional fingerprints were taken, and he was then placed in a jail cell with another person. Id. ¶ 33. At approximately 1:00 a.m., Johnson met with "an unknown commissioner," and Johnson asked him about the photo and the social security number. Id. ¶ 34. In response, the unidentified commissioner allegedly said "that he could not do anything about it and Plaintiff was a fugitive from New Mexico." Id. ¶ 35. The commissioner then asked Johnson "several questions about his occupation, marital status, income, and living arrangement." Id. ¶ 36. Johnson responded to the questions, and the "commissioner indicated that Plaintiff would go before a judge in the morning at around 8:30AM to be extradited back to New
Page 5
Mexico." Id. ¶ 37. Johnson was then placed in a group cell "with about ten ('10') other inmates for several hours." Id. ¶ 38.
Later, Johnson "was given a psychological test, a prison suit, and breakfast." Id. ¶ 39. Then, he was taken to another area of Central Booking, where he was "placed in another cell with another person who had multiple convictions for drugs, armed robbery, and gun possession for the rest of the night." Id. ¶ 40.
In the morning, when Johnson was "supposed to appear before a judge," court officials told him that he "was not on the list." Id. ¶ 41. No one was able to explain to Johnson why his "hearing was cancelled." Id. ¶ 43. For several more hours, Johnson sat in the holding cell "until he was called out for officials to draw his blood for a syphilis determination." Id. ¶ 44. Once again, Johnson asked when he would see a judge, "but no one could tell Plaintiff anything." Id. ¶ 45.
At "about 7:30 p.m. the next day, Plaintiff was told he was being released" but first "had to sign some paperwork . . . ." Id. ¶ 46. At approximately 8 p.m., Johnson was released, "without an apology." Id. ¶ 47.
This suit followed on April 12, 2018. ECF 1. The original Complaint named five defendants: the Maryland Department of Transportation ("MDOT"), doing business as the Maryland Transit Administration ("MTA"); "John Doe #1," a Maryland Transportation Authority officer; "John Doe #2," an MDTA supervisor; "Jane Doe #3," an MDTA employee; and "John Doe #4," an MDTA commissioner (collectively, the "Doe Defendants"). Id.
The MDOT, the MTA, and the MDTA (collectively, the "State") moved to dismiss Johnson's Complaint. ECF 3. The State asserted that the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit, and that Johnson failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 3-6. Johnson opposed the motion and sought "limited discovery" to identify the Doe Defendants. ECF 7.
Page 6
By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 18) and Order (ECF 19) of November 21, 2018, I granted the State's motion in part and denied it in part. ECF 18 at 2. In particular, I dismissed Johnson's claims against the MDOT, inclusive of the MTA and the MDTA, finding that these agencies are arms of the State and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity. Id. at 11, 14. However, I "permitted limited discovery for the sole purpose of enabling plaintiff to determine the identities of [the Doe Defendants]. . . ." Id. at 18. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint (ECF 29), identifying the individual defendants.
Additional facts are included in the Discussion.
As noted, both Hammett and Dickerson move to dismiss Johnson's suit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). In re Birmingham, 846 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 2017); Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016); McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom., McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
Whether a complaint states a claim for relief is assessed by reference to the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). That rule provides that a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of the rule is to provide the defendants with "fair notice" of the claims and the "grounds" for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
Page 7
To survive a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (citation omitted) ("Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' . . . ."); see also Paradise Wire...
To continue reading
Request your trial